PUA Forum
https://pick-up-artist-forum.com/

How to reframing in a argument like 'Thank you for smoking'
https://pick-up-artist-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=155700		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  rathan [ Sun Jan 27, 2013 10:34 pm ]
Post subject:  How to reframing in a argument like 'Thank you for smoking'
I watched the film 'Thank you for smoking' I was just astonished how effective main character was at reframing in conversation. He was promoting smoking, he was able to change people's frame at looking at smoking and he was so effective.
I remember a scene in the movie where main character is interacting with his son states that "Beauty of an argument is that if you argue correctly your never wrong"

I done some research found out the person that wrote novel 'Thank for smoking' was a speech writer for president. i think writer intentionally chose the main character to promote smoking, he wanted the readers to understand you get away with anything if argue correctly and also this is what politicians are doing to us.

so my question is where i can learn to reframe argument to benefit me. or any book on argument and debating? Is there any books to help me out.

Thanks you in advance. :)
Author:  puaninja [ Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: How to reframing in a argument like 'Thank you for smoki
A good book is 'Being logical: a guide to good thinking' by D. Q. Mclnerny.

What the guy did in Thank you for smoking was intentionally abuse locial argumentation to further his own goals. A lot of times people will make errors when arguing their point, and fall victim to what is called fallacious reasoning. But you can also intentionally frame an argument using a false premise in order to lend credence to something that you know to be untrue or unethical. This is the very foundation of lying.

Remember when Bill Clinton said he never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky? He knew damn well that getting a blowjob is sexual relations. But when confronted with that admission, he reframed it by saying that he intended the term "sexual relations" to mean vaginal intercourse, which he and Monica did not engage in. Therefore he didn't have sexaul relations with her and was not actually telling a lie. This is a prime example of a semantic argument, where one intentionally redefines or manipulates the meaning of a word or term in order to validate their own specious argument.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/